Talk:Italian War of 1494–1495

Wrong Title?
The article describes the war as having ended in 1495. Was the article mistitled then? Should it not be the Italian War of 1494-1495? 75.41.58.113 (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In this case, it's the text that's incorrect, not the title; while the last major battle was fought in 1495, the fighting did continue sporadically into 1498. Thanks for catching this! Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In this case it would be a good idea to include something about the next three years of the war, no? There may not have been any battles but it would be good to write about what did happen. As it is the article only covers two years of a five year war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.188.244 (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Italian War of 1494–98. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150204194510/http://studyingthepast.com/post/16-charles-viiis-italian-war to http://studyingthepast.com/post/16-charles-viiis-italian-war

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Victory?
You can retreat, losing all the loot a.d call it a victory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.30.216.217 (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Knights, Squires and Foot Soldiers in Portugal during the Sixteenth-Century Military Revolution, Pedro de Brito, Mediterranean Studies, Vol. 17 (2008), page 129;"This commander's[Gonzalo Fernandex de Cordoba] first encounter with the French at Seminara (June 1495) ran sour, and he withdrew into the guerrilla warfare he had observed the Moors practicing at Granada. Meanwhile, a coalition had been formed by the divided Italian city states, and at the risk of having his lines of communication with France cut, Charles withdrew to the north of Italy. Notwithstanding his victory over the coalesced Italian forces at Fornovo, one week after Seminara.." --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The source cited at footnote 15 to justify the statement, without qualification, that Fornovo was a French victory, is p 56 of The Military Organisation of a Renaissance State Venice c.1400 to 1617 by M E Mallett and J R Hale. That significantly misrepresents what Mallett writes through selectivity. What Mallett writes in full is that "Fornovo was clearly a French victory in the sense that Charles achieved his aim breaking through into Lombardy. But it was not the Italian humiliation that it is sometimes made out to have been. As far as Venice was concerned, and this is clearly indicated by the Senate's instructions to the proveditors, the main aim was to avoid defeat and keep the army intact while administering a shock to the French. The idea that the French army might be destroyed or even prevented from returning home would have appeared wildly optimistic to the contemporary Italian military mentality. Therefore the news of the outcome of the battle was received in Venice with immense relief and rejoicing. Gonzaga and Fortebraccio, himself badly wounded in the battle, were the heroes of the hour."

On pages 57-8 Mallett goes on to show how as a result of Fornovo Venice was able to send an army into the Kingdom of Naples to eject the French garrisons, and to separately intervene in Pisa in order to force Florence to abandon its alliance with France.

Clearly Mallett acknowledges the fact that Fornovo is often regarded as an "Italian humiliation" and it ought to be possible to find other sources which justify the statement of French victory. But if there article is going to cite Mallet it should reflect his clear view that Fornovo was (a) achieved the specific objectives set by the Venetian senate and (b) was regarded as a victory by contemporary Venetians and (c) was a strategic victory for Venice.

Original research and source misrepresentation
This edit is source misrepresentation and original research and should not be allow on this encyclopedia! Typical POV pushing from someone that can not handle facts. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit
This page shows clearly bias(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias)siince you dismiss of the sources YOU DO NOT LIKE. I get you do this because you feel big here contrary to your pathetic life, but you gotta accept True History — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.30.216.217 (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * So after edit warring your WP:OR into the articles, you issue personal attacks. How typical. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Lol, you whine after you attacked me personally. Typical — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.211.180.105 (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)